....with NO easy answers, around the matter of Universal Income, Negative Taxation or other ways to address the coming mass layoffs from automation and the effects on society. Interesting comparisons, and clearly a lot of thinking still to be done. It would be heartening if I saw US policymakers even acknowledging the coming need.

This idea has actually been tried as a basic income experiment years ago. Ferno may have even heard about it since it took place in a city Winnipeg and rural Manitoba, although that was clear back in 1973. This experiment actually had some positive results. Even the worry that this basic income might create a disincentive to work never really materialized. People still wanted to work. Apparently, where it did show up was with new mothers and teenagers, and even they ended up having some side benefits from this experiment as well.

Lets see, the country is 20 trillion in debt and how are you going to pay for it indeed. If I was a sentient robot I'd get rid of the human race as they've become too worthless...but then isn't that the Dems plan? give the people just enough to keep them all on a plantation and voting for those who keep the checks flowing.

woodchip wrote:Lets see, the country is 20 trillion in debt and how are you going to pay for it indeed. If I was a sentient robot I'd get rid of the human race as they've become too worthless...but then isn't that the Dems plan? give the people just enough to keep them all on a plantation and voting for those who keep the checks flowing.

any idea how much long-term capital flow there is out there among our investor class?

"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"

Ah, here you go slick. I'll resurrect this thread because this little item just came out in Bloomberg Businessweek. Finland is now actually trying out the idea of a basic income. I'm quite sure all the right wing socialism haters here would absolutely freak out at the very idea, overlooking the fact that the famous conservative free-market economist Milton Friedman (deceased) supported the idea of a negative tax. You also referenced that above as well. Basic income is pretty much the same idea, except that it's paid out monthly, not only at tax time. I'm betting that Mr. Friedman would also chaff at being called a "socialist". It'll be interesting to see how Finland's experiment works out in the long run. As for here in the good old U.S. of A., where sick people are dumped on the streets by hospitals when they have no money and Social Security and Medicare are on the Republican's dream hit list, it would be an impossibility to even consider or implement such a radical idea here.

This issue is always loaded with strawmen, it’s not about whether people will want to work or not, and other such things…it’s about how a system where there is absolutely nothing left to backup currency can function at all, and things more along that line.

I will stick to my argument that a mincome will be the enabler of the worst case scenario, and still believe that the system has to self correct, and yes it will be rough…but far better in the long run than the worst case scenario.

Simply put…humans have to learn the hard way that humans can’t be removed from the loop.

Humans can be removed from the loop, it probably won't be all that far off either. Computers are already making better decisions than doctors and driving cars more safely than is humanly possible, soon they could be doing your job too.

it is not really around whether folks want to work or not, and it certainly is not the case that any monetary system requires work as a defining point(it is output, and conversion of capital, more than anything). No, my fear and I feel the main issues come with the millenia-long conflation of labor(work) and self-worth within a society. We are going to need to rethink what makes ourselves and our fellow humans worthy of respect. I guess the place to aim for is some ethics/morality/integrity based value system, but it could easily go to cruder models than that.

"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"

No, I'm not assuming a damn thing, I said "I" would be willing to stop working............................

OK, what does mincome enable, in your opinion?

It will enable companies to get rid of the workforce without feeling the pain of losing them as customers.

So tell me how a populace that doesn't work and only has mincome can afford any extra expenditures to buy the more expensive and discretionary products people typically desire and that these companies certainly want to sell? Unless of course these companies are willing to settle for selling nothing but a LOT of cheap products with no growth potential. There's still housing, medical care and food too, which will take a big cut out of everyone's mincome, so if people want to have some sort of extra discretionary spending cash, they'll need the extra income and they'll have to find some sort of work to get it. That means that if companies want to sell the more expensive and discretionary products that make them more profit, they're going to have to supply the jobs needed by creating a labor force that will have more money in their pockets to spend. Isn't this kind of a which came first issue, the chicken or the egg? The way way we're headed, if the reduction of our labor force due to outsourcing and automation continues, there will soon no longer be enough people in this country with enough money to buy ANY products at all, EXCEPT for the very wealthy. They by themselves cannot support a large economy because they just can't possibly spend enough. These companies are essentially cutting off their own noses to spite their own faces and capitalism as we know it will collapse.

callmeslick wrote:it is not really around whether folks want to work or not, and it certainly is not the case that any monetary system requires work as a defining point(it is output, and conversion of capital, more than anything). No, my fear and I feel the main issues come with the millenia-long conflation of labor(work) and self-worth within a society. We are going to need to rethink what makes ourselves and our fellow humans worthy of respect. I guess the place to aim for is some ethics/morality/integrity based value system, but it could easily go to cruder models than that.

Unless we as a nation work at creating a better system that supports some sort of fairness and works at maintaining it by actively preventing abuses, gives people a reason for wanting to exist and contribute as participating citizens within a society of their peers, a system doesn't let the few take advantage and doesn't leave the rest behind as worthless garbage to conveniently forget about, I'm betting things will degrade into some form of cruder model. It'll become more of a dog eat dog evolutionary throwback, because that's what humans revert to when things really break down. We'll regress to a tribal us against them model, with the wealthy and advantaged living in walled-in secure communities with the rest of humanity running around warring over scraps.

Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.

callmeslick wrote:No, my fear and I feel the main issues come with the millenia-long conflation of labor(work) and self-worth within a society. We are going to need to rethink what makes ourselves and our fellow humans worthy of respect. I guess the place to aim for is some ethics/morality/integrity based value system, but it could easily go to cruder models than that.

woodchip wrote:Lets see, the country is 20 trillion in debt and how are you going to pay for it indeed. If I was a sentient robot I'd get rid of the human race as they've become too worthless...but then isn't that the Dems plan? give the people just enough to keep them all on a plantation and voting for those who keep the checks flowing.

any idea how much long-term capital flow there is out there among our investor class?

Any idea how much unfunded liability is out there? Any idea why social security is going dry? And yet to somehow think money will magically appear that everyone can be paid a certain base income. Business will be required to pay a tax on what their robotic produced sales are. I suggest you wait until the lobbyists manipulate those taxes downward and see what is left over.

So lets see. Trump must think money grows on trees, because he wants a lot more of it for his infrastructure package and his little border wall. News flash, Mexico is NOT going to pay for it either. All of that will cost BILLIONS more and add even more to the debt. So where do you think that will come from? Businesses have already gotten their tax break, so they aren't footing the bill, even though they USE that infrastructure to do business and trucking does the most damage. I'm guessing we'll probably be seeing a lot more toll roads and bridges in order to finance everything. In other words, private industry will foot the bill and then charge us slaves through the nose with a markup just to pay for everything. Bye, bye toll freedom on the interstates. I'm also guessing the next cost cutting attack will be on what the right wingers call "entitlement programs". You know, the kind of programs that keep most retired people from being thrown out on the streets and/or being unable to afford healthcare, programs which Republicans HATE anyway. Hey, it's a win, win...for them.

Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.

So lets see. Trump must think money grows on trees, because he wants a lot more of it for his infrastructure package

No the liberals think money grows on trees and when Obama was in office all I heard was how we needed to rebuild our infrastructure. Yet you and slick were all for the idea. Funny how a change in the presidency also changes your view on what you were for.

So lets see. Trump must think money grows on trees, because he wants a lot more of it for his infrastructure package

No the liberals think money grows on trees and when Obama was in office all I heard was how we needed to rebuild our infrastructure. Yet you and slick were all for the idea. Funny how a change in the presidency also changes your view on what you were for.

ummm, where did I suggest a problem with spending fed money for infrastructure? Unfortunately, Cheeto Hitler hasn't suggested doing that, and in fact, sucked available money OUT of the budget with an unneeded and unwise tax cut, and a suggestion we add a couple hundred billion to Defense. Can't have it both ways, Woody, and now that your boy has fucked up the global demand for our money and our bonds, the costs of that infrastructure borrowing become astronomic.

"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"

So lets see. Trump must think money grows on trees, because he wants a lot more of it for his infrastructure package

No the liberals think money grows on trees and when Obama was in office all I heard was how we needed to rebuild our infrastructure. Yet you and slick were all for the idea. Funny how a change in the presidency also changes your view on what you were for.

I seem to remember you screaming constantly about The Debt while Obama was in office. Now? Nary a peep, not from you or the Republicans ever since they got control. Now they're flubbing it and making it WORSE and I just know on purpose. I always knew that this little moniker, "Tax cut and spend" fit the Republicans to a tee. Debt is only a concern when the Democrats are in office. When Republicans have control, MEH. In fact, the same was true under Reagan and under Bush. It must be a tick.

But to show you Trump's evolving views on his own campaign promise once reality set in, here's how he newly envisions the way to pay for his infrastructure package, pass the buck, let the states find a way to pay for it. You'll notice that the money will then have to come from little ol' you and me and not the big corporations with their sudden newly minted wealth flowing out their ears.